Timeline for Most important results of the year - appropriate or not?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 5 at 16:34 | answer | added | fedja | timeline score: 12 | |
| Dec 28, 2023 at 15:03 | answer | added | David White | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 27, 2023 at 12:51 | history | edited | Timothy Chow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added link
|
| Dec 25, 2023 at 2:27 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | The Quanta year end summary seems, understandably, heavily biased towards results that are easily explainable to a general audience (so we see a lot of graph theory, combinatorics, elementary number theory, et cetera). | |
| Dec 24, 2023 at 21:16 | comment | added | user509184 | Is the intended use of the voting options that users should simply up-vote the option they favor? Or is the expectation that users will up-vote the option they favor, and down-vote the option they oppose? It will have an odd effect on the votes if some users are only up-voting, while others are both up-voting and down-voting. | |
| Dec 24, 2023 at 13:53 | comment | added | FShrike | Such a list has value. Many old more "opinion based" questions on MSE and MO have much value but would be shut down if asked today; I think that is a shame. The rules about good questions - rules mostly designed to ward off scrappy homework or low effort questions - should not be so inflexible; as there is clear value in such a list (for anyone who is nonexpert in a particular field) the question is a good one. Some of the more historic questions are just funny and interesting on a human level; that's good too. We shouldn't be a robotic "question in, answer out" machine | |
| Dec 23, 2023 at 13:24 | history | edited | Timothy Chow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added links to Quanta Magazine
|
| Dec 23, 2023 at 1:23 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 7 | |
| Dec 23, 2023 at 1:17 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 59 | |
| Dec 23, 2023 at 1:06 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @ChristopherKing I once asked a question on MO with the word "favorite" in the title, and was warned by the software that my question might be unacceptably subjective. Indeed, the help page specifically flags "What's your favorite...?" questions as a type of question to avoid. | |
| Dec 22, 2023 at 16:47 | comment | added | Christopher King | Perhaps "Favorite results in 2023" would make the subjectivity more apparent? We could even steal the popularity contest tag. | |
| Dec 22, 2023 at 15:07 | comment | added | Andy Putman | I agree with Will re “most important result”. However, by my standards, breakthroughs are rare and I would hesitate to use the word for many genuinely new and surprising results. I would prefer a more understated title like “Noteworthy results in 2023”. | |
| Dec 22, 2023 at 13:53 | history | edited | Timothy Chow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 37 characters in body
|
| Dec 22, 2023 at 13:25 | comment | added | Will Sawin | I like the title "Breakthroughs in mathematics" instead of "Most important results" because the second one carries some awkward implications (primarily that a result that isn't listed would be less important than all the listed results). Also one can have a breakthrough in the study of non-radial flanges even if non-radial flanges aren't a particularly important mathematical object at all - assessing whether something is a breakthrough within it's field is much less subjective than assessing the improtance of different fields. | |
| Dec 22, 2023 at 11:51 | history | edited | Timothy Chow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added links and an update
|
| Dec 22, 2023 at 7:16 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | I'm glad this was brought up. Thanks! | |
| Dec 22, 2023 at 4:57 | history | edited | Timothy Chow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added another option
|
| Dec 22, 2023 at 2:40 | history | became hot meta post | |||
| Dec 22, 2023 at 1:23 | history | asked | Timothy Chow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |